Abstract

Responding to new government regulations about reporting data,
a social service agency decided to require caseworkers to use
laptop computers extensively, taking these devices with them on
calls to clients. The resistance of caseworkers to this mandate
and this change provided an opportunity to examine the
phenomena of technology resistance. Initially rooting the study
in known models for examining technology resistance,
researchers found the need to expand upon these models to
acknowledge other social aspects, as well as individual aspects
to alterations in work behavior. Perceiving that professional
identity was at issue, the study employed concepts from Kling's
social aspects of computing and Schein's career anchor theory,
and used qualitative methods including an adaptation of Sacks's
membership category analysis method from the field of
ethnomethodology that led to insights about the underlying
causes of IT resistance among social service workers. The
originality of this micro-level approach lies in its ability to
explore moral aspects of professional and personal identity.
The approach revealed, in this situation, that workers'
resistance was based particularly on a local history of
organizational dysfunction in addition to elements such as
performance and effort expectancy, attitudes, and anxiety that
is typically discussed in the information technology acceptance
literature.

Keywords:

1 Introduction

Recent changes in U.S. government laws and regulations
mandate that all agencies receiving funds from the Older Americans Act and related legislation
work towards a universal reporting standard that effectively
requires the use of new information technologies including
hardware and software. Although the mandated changes are
themselves incremental (i.e. a multi-year series of
escalating requirements), the social service agency in our
study planned to use the new requirements as a springboard
for substantial streamlining of their work processes (e.g.
eliminating multiple entry of data, using paperless case
tracking processes, and employing local and wide area
networks to facilitate transfer of data among functional
areas). Thus, federal and state reporting requirements
appeared at first to catalyze the long-delayed introduction
of new information technology and new work processes into
agency operations. For the caseworkers in the agency, this
anticipated change would mean, in practical terms, that they
would be required to carry laptop computers to field visits
and download their data on returning to the office.
Employees' resistance to this mandate, seemingly out of
proportion with the usual reluctance to learn new
technologies, pointed to issues fundamental to their
assumptions about their professional practices and, indeed,
their very status.

Using in-depth interviews with caseworkers and information
technology professionals as well as field notes from
follow-up client visits, the research presented here explores
this technology resistance, addressing employees'
perspectives on past and future technology implementation in
their organization. Responding to the early indications of
identity issues, we explore how respondents constructed the
social relationships in their organization, their
professional identities, and their adaptations to past and
proposed IT changes.

2 Theoretical considerations

As we learned more about the organization in which we
conducted this research, it became clearer that the most
commonly used frameworks for exploring technology acceptance,
Davis' (1989) technology acceptance
model (TAM) and a variety of more recent extensions of the
model, did not seem adequate for this application. In
particular, we learned that their resistance to the
technology-driven change that we encountered had effectively
no relation to the character or capabilities of the
technology itself. Finding that caseworkers appeared to be
highly resistant to the idea of adapting the proposed
technology, we decided to seek a new strategy for exploring
the reasons behind the resistance and the possibility of
institutional and cultural constraints present within the
organization. To set the stage, we begin by describing the
main technology acceptance models and our rationale for why
they appear inadequate for describing our data. Next, we
describe two other theoretical areas that have better
applicability to our analysis: Schein's
(1996) career anchor theory and Kling's work (Dr. Rob Kling Remembered) on the
social aspects of computing. Finally, we describe useful
aspects of the sociological field of ethnomethodology and the
tool of membership category analysis, enumerate a
representative set of current research areas using this
methodology, and explain how this methodological "toolbox"
might usefully serve for studying questions of technology
acceptance and organizational culture in light of Kling's and
Schein's work.

2.1 Technology acceptance models

One of the most widely used and adapted models of technology
acceptance has been the TAM developed by Davis et al. (1989). The TAM
derives from Ajzen and Fishbein's (1977, 1980) and Ajzen and Madden's (1986) work on the
theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to predict
the behaviors of people in specific situations.

The original version of TAM proposed a basis for tracing the
impact of external variables on internal beliefs, attitudes,
and intentions. The theory suggested that attitudes towards
using technology are a function of two belief constructs:
perceived usefulness of the technology, and perceived ease of
use of the technology. The theory proposed that perceived
ease of use has a causal effect on perceived usefulness.
Perceived usefulness is defined as the "degree to which an
individual believes that using a particular system would
enhance his or her job performance". Perceived ease of use is
defined as "the degree to which an individual believes that
using a particular system would be free of physical and
mental effort." (Davis 1993, p. 477).

TAM2 introduced and tested the original model in terms of
social influence and cognitive instrumental processes, and
found that both significantly affected user acceptance (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). The model
made an important distinction between voluntary and mandatory
usage, following findings that usage intentions vary even
when a change is organizationally mandated (Hartwick and Barki 1994). One of the
practical considerations of TAM2 was that mandatory
approaches to new systems seemed less effective over time
than the use of social influence.

Critiques of TAM and related theories have also suggested
that the model has strong limitations. Legris et al. (2003) reviewed 22
articles published from 1980 to 2001 that used TAM and
concluded that TAM was a useful model, but one that "has to
be integrated into a broader [model] which would include
variables related to both human and social change processes."
This criticism suggests that other relevant factors are not
included in the model and the explanatory power of TAM is
limited despite the statistical success of its regression
models (Sun 2003).

In response to these developments, a unified model of user
acceptance of IT (UTAUT) was formulated and empirically
tested, outperforming the eight original models on which it
was based (Venkateshet al.
2003). The new model confirmed the significant moderating
effects of experience, voluntariness, gender, and age. The
authors also suggested that public and resource-poor
environments were other factors that were not yet adequately
addressed in their new model.

A common thread of previous technology acceptance models such
as TAM is the focus on cognitions about the target
technology. TAM examines the precursor beliefs to predict a
focal attitude towards the technology in question. Issues
related to organizational culture are not present in the
theory. Likewise absent is the consideration of the
individual's perception of usefulness in respect to career
goals and orientation within the organization.

2.2 Social aspects of
computerization

The concerns listed above reflect an emphasis on technical
capabilities of new technology over social and sociotechnical
concerns. As Kling (1996) suggested,
"Thinking and talking about computerization as the
development of sociotechnical configurations rather than as
simply installing and using a new technology is not
commonplace." Elements of the social environment before and
particularly after the introduction of a new technology can
have profound effects on the work lives of employees. New
technology affects the social organization of work, access to
resources, formal and informal organizational structures, and
bureaucratic control patterns.

In efforts to understand new information technologies and
their role in changing work organizations, Kling and Zmuidzinas (1994) used the
concept of "workplace visions", which include "beliefs about
the relationships among computing, workers, and work
reorganization" as a central construct to their theorizing.
Four possible changes in the ways work is organized include
metamorphoses, migration, elaboration/reinforcement, and
stability. The authors explain that workplace visions are not
necessarily shared by all employees or managers, and "early
directions" of workplace vision, although changeable, do have
an important effect on later decisions. This "structuration"
framework of work transformation is very much at odds with
earlier deterministic models (Huber
(1990) as cited by Kling and Zmuidzinas
(1994)). Unlike TAM, this theorizing puts social
structure and dynamics on the same stage with technical
matters. By providing an integrated viewpoint for
understanding the relations between computing capabilities
and social structures, Kling's work provides a lens for
understanding technology-driven change in organizations that
allows holistic analysis of the new technology rooted in the
context of the extant social system.

We believed, however, that one additional element of theory
was needed to fully cover the research situation we
encountered. Workers in social service professions obtain
satisfaction in helping others; this is a primary reason they
give for dedication to their work (Bowe
et al. 2001). Service-oriented people are driven
by how they can help other people more than using their
talents (Schein 1993); although they
seek fair pay and benefits, material compensation is somewhat
peripheral to people in this group. A promotion system that
recognizes the service contribution and the possibility to
move towards positions with more influence for "good" and
freedom to benefit clients by being able to operate
autonomously is most appropriate for them. Recognition and
support from peers and superiors, and values shared with
others, are more important to social service professionals
than some other forms of compensation. With caseworkers at
our research organization, we perceived that an essential
reason they found value in their work was based on beliefs
and experiences signifying that their services could help
elderly and needy people.

Although such motivations as these do appear implicitly in
the "workplace visions" notion posed by Kling and Zmuidzinas (1994), we believed
that some useful additional specificity could be added to
their ideas through inclusion of what Schein (1993) described as "career
anchors". The idea of a career anchor was developed based on
research, "designed to better understand how careers evolved
and how people learned the values and procedures of their
employing organization" (Schein 1993).
Schein (1978) followed 44 workers over
a period of 10-12 years using in-depth interviews and
questionnaires to examine job histories and the reasons
behind career decisions. On this basis, Schein (1996) defined eight prototypical
career anchors: Security/stability, autonomy/independence,
life style, technical-functional competence, general
managerial competence, entrepreneurial creativity, service or
dedication to a cause and pure challenge.

In short, career anchors explain the job movement choices of
workers as they progress through their careers. Career
anchors both shape and are shaped by work experiences and, as
such, comprise a stable pattern of self-perceived talents,
motives and values that serve to guide, constrain, stabilize,
and integrate individual careers. Although Schein was
originally concerned with career "moves", i.e. changes from
one job to another job, the theory has apparent applicability
to "intra-job" activities, such as decisions and actions that
workers undertake in the face of substantial organizational
changes. One of the eight career anchors is
service/dedication to a cause, and we found that many of the
caseworkers in our research organization described their jobs
in ways consistent with this orientation. Thus, we believed
that the operative "workplace vision" at our research
organization was formulated by caseworkers on the basis of a
commonly shared career anchor rooted in the service
orientation. This career anchor, and the set of decisions and
actions that sprang from it, appeared to serve as a major
source of the resistance to the new technology that we
encountered at the research organization.

We felt certain that standard normative research methods used
in existing technology acceptance research would not provide
the kind of rich insights into these ideas that we believed
were necessary to understand the applicability of our
Kling-Schein theory synthesis. Instead, we believed that
ethnomethodological tools such as conversation analysis and
membership categorization analysis would prove more suitable
for exploring issues of identity and social structure raised
by the Kling-Schein synthesis. Thus, we next began to
formulate an adaptation of these methods that would be
appropriate for our data.

3 Membership categorization analysis
within ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology is a diverse set of research techniques
often equated with one of its central tools, conversation
analysis. Membership category analysis, one of
ethnomethodology's less frequently utilized tools, is
concerned with the interactive processes that take place in
day-to-day interactions between people and the ways in which
they form their identities in relation to other social actors
in their work settings (Garfinkel
1967, Heritage 1984, Maynard and Clayman 2003). Skills and
functions of talk rather than judgments about the content of
talk are the emphasis of this research method. Membership
categorization devices comprise collections of
classifications or social types used by a group of
individuals plus their rules of classification in a specific
context (Boden 1990, Boden and Zimmerman 1991, Bowker and Star 1999, Coulter 1989, Housley
and Fitzgerald 2002, Potter 1996).
Sacks's (1974) membership
categorization analysis, and more specifically "membership
categorization devices", serve as our main method in the
present research.

Silverman argued for developing an analysis of how
participants produce contexts for their interaction, saying
"By beginning with the question of 'how', we can then
fruitfully move on to 'why' questions about institutional and
cultural constraints." Importantly, this method "reveals the
functions of apparently irrational practices and helps us to
understand the possibilities and limits of attempts at social
reform." (Silverman 2001 p. 407)
Using this method, prior research has shown that respondents
continually produce and reproduce their professional
identities and the social structure of the organization as
they talk without necessarily naming the membership category
in which they are placing themselves (Psathas 1999; see also Goffman 1959).

4 Methods and results

Our method of data gathering consisted of audio taped
interviews, observations of client visits, and text analysis.
To protect the identities of our respondents, we have chosen
to present reenactments of the quotes as audio-files here
rather than using our original tape recorded excerpts. Please
note that any differences between the transcripts and the
sound you hear are due to mistakes on the part of the
volunteer "actors". The data were collected between February
and June of 2002 by the authors and five student research
assistants. Formal meetings with organizational
administrators and interviews with information technology
staff were conducted in order to learn about the background
of the change to digital information and management
perspectives on the local history of the organization.
Eighteen employees with a variety of job titles (but whose
general work responsibilities were grouped by the authors as
"caseworkers") agreed to participate in the 20-50 minute
interviews. The authors and two student researchers conducted
observations of eight client visits and analysis of field
notes. The entire data corpus contained about 145 pages of
text (over 47,000 words).

Although we had some predetermined topic areas to discuss and
were concerned with perceptions about upcoming IT changes, we
approached the data collection in an open-ended manner. The
interviews (see the Appendix)
addressed general topics related to the employees' position,
knowledge about an upcoming IT change, concerns about the
changes, and relationships with IT support staff. The
open-ended nature of the questions allowed respondents a fair
amount of freedom to define themselves and the nature of the
problem as it related to the upcoming technology changes.
Research questions were further developed as we learned more
about the respondents' experiences, and were adjusted for use
during our observation of eight client visits several months
later. With guidance from Sacks's
(1992) methodological work, particularly membership
categorization devices, and more general works on qualitative
research in organizations (Silverman
1998, Silverman 2001), we coded
the data for membership groupings and the many duties,
responsibilities and other qualities found within the talk
about those groups. We used Atlas T.I. software for
qualitative research to help organize and analyze our data.

4.1 Description of organization
and established work processes

The agency comprised of six different social service units
that provided over 200 different kinds of services to the
elderly and disabled. Examples included home delivered meals
and rural transportation. In addition to responding to
clients' and families' requests for assistance, the social
service office seeks legal help for clients as necessary. The
organization employs approximately 30 caseworkers to handle
the various cases.

At each of approximately 20 routine visits per week,
caseworkers were required by their agency to complete a
15-page paper form. Because they were responsible for
providing referrals for a variety of social services,
caseworkers also brought copies of many other forms with
them. They spent much of each visit assisting clients to
determine their needs and then filling out the appropriate
forms. Later the workers either delivered the forms to the
appropriate agencies or returned them to the main office for
distribution. Notice of approval or denial of the services
was generally received about a month or two later. On
occasion, there were long delays in the return of the
paperwork, in part due to the inefficiency of the information
flow in the office and in part due to inadequate funding of
services. Clients could wait many months or even as long as
one year on a waiting list for the services they requested.

4.2 Recent history of IT change in
the agency

4.2.1 Theme 1. Proposed laptop
computers

As a move toward shifting to digital information in
compliance with new federal and state regulations, the agency
management mandated that employees and caseworkers take
portable laptop computers into the field for collecting data
during client visits. The federal mandate for electronic
transmission of minimum data sets is the National Aging Program Information System
(NAPIS), which is regulated by the federal Older Americans Act. The state mandate for
electronic transmission of data is the Consolidated Area
Agency Reporting System (CAARS). The agency decided that
laptops were the "way to go" in order to reduce duplication
and increase efficiency. Ideally, all information would be
directly input into the software program by way of laptop in
the field, as it occurs. Because the minimum data set is
about 20 pages long, it did not seem practical to write that
much on a hard copy and then expend more time and energy
typing it on a computer.

The agency understood their choice as the following: they
could invest in laptops for the case managers, or they could
hire many data entry operators to get the information in,
allowing a great deal of room for error and inefficiency. It
was decided that it would be most efficient to have case
managers type in the data, and then make a hard copy from the
computer to keep in the client file.

In planning for the upcoming change, the organizational
leaders made an assessment of current computer skills and
arranged for caseworkers to attend basic computer training.
Customizing software to fit with government regulations was
done through a contract with a small software company. A
budget was set aside for the purchase of 30 new laptop
computers. At the time of data collection, 17 computers had
been purchased; the administration was awaiting purchase of
the remaining computers before completing the changeover to
required use of laptops for the collection of digital
information in the field. We had informal discussions with
the agency's managers and information technology
professionals that revealed a preoccupation with the
budgetary, logistical, and technical aspects of the planned
transition to the field use of the new technology. We learned
that the agency's management had not discussed or planned any
fundamental changes to the pattern or methods of the daily
work undertaken by field workers or caseworkers that would
occur because of the shift to digital information.

We found the employees at first appeared resistant to
technology, but even before systematically applying
membership categorization analysis techniques, we learned
that their more salient concerns were twofold: they were
resisting the administration's treatment of them, in part
because of other technology adoptions that they found
inconvenient (e.g. requirements for carrying cellular
phones), and in part because of a reported belief that their
clients might not feel comfortable in the presence of the new
technology.

Caseworkers' initial reactions about the prospect of new
technology for the delivery of digital information also
indicated resistance: learning how to use the laptops would
be difficult, taking them to the field would be inconvenient,
and laptops might invite theft and/or burglary. However,
further questioning revealed that the skepticism on these
grounds could be overcome if it meant that the caseworkers
would be able to provide enhanced services. Describing their
vision of the near future as a period when service to clients
would be compromised due to the added time constraints and
the difficulty in maintaining a caring visit with the clients
if an intrusive laptop were present, the majority of
caseworkers did not consider laptops beneficial to them or
their clients in any way.

In the following excerpts, caseworkers explained their
reactions and those of their coworkers. One worker reveals
several of her concerns about the new laptops for her
relationship with clients. Note that in the first excerpt,
the resistance is ascribed to coworkers, a tactic that is
recognized as freeing the speaker to express feelings without
censoring her/himself.

[See Supplementary Files for audio clip#1]

R1 (Respondent 1)
I (Interviewer): How do you think your coworkers will react
(to the new laptops)?
R (Respondent): I think most of them will be very
challenged and very stressed out by it because they are not
familiar with computers. I mean, I hear it from them. They
are not looking forward to it. In fact, I don't think I
have heard anybody say, "Oh great, now we are going to use
laptops and that will help." It's "Oh no, I really don't
know how to do it."
I: What is their fear?
R: That it is going to take more time. And the clients are
not going to like it.
I: And do you have some similar concerns?
R: Yeah, I do. I have a physician that I go to where it's
on his laptop and he'll sit with his back to me, talking to
me and looking at the screen. I don't like it.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#2]

R2
I: Do you think that is going to affect your relationship
with clients?
R: Yeah I think so
I: Worse or better?
R: I think they are going to feel worse.
I: Why are they going to feel that way?
R: Uncomfortable. They are not used to it, it will make
them inhibited. The screen thing is like this, in front of
your face. They can't see what you are doing. I do not
know. I've never done it so I can see it seems to be a
little more impersonal for me. But if it was me I will feel
intimidated.

There were also concerns about the income/class disparities
between clients and caseworkers that would be magnified by
the presence of a computer. Describing computers as
"impersonal," "robotic," and "intimidating," respondents
anticipated that some clients might feel upset, distrustful,
and anxious, and this would lead to clients being "less open"
about their actual situations. That situation in turn would
compromise the delivery of social services.

[See Supplementary Files for audio clip#3]

R1: They are not going to like it. Like if you are writing
on a client's chart or something, they don't like it. They
get very suspicious.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#4]

R2: I am concerned about (pause) safety. We don't travel in
the nicest parts of town, you know what I'm saying. It
won't be safe to drag along.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#5]

R3: I don't know, it's just impersonal. And we work in the
inner city, and there are places where I wouldn't even want
to bring my cell phone. There are houses that I don't even
want to sit down in.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#6]

R4: The other thing would be I really like to have
eye-to-eye contact with the client and I don't think that
is to me is almost not very polite to sit there, you know,
with a senior or anyone and have to be trying to type and
concentrate on your typing errors and (pause) just to look
at them occasionally (pause), it is almost like a (pause)
quick insurance salesman or something coming into the
house, I don't know. It does not seem right now that it is
going fit our goals.

Beyond that, caseworkers described the homes as places where
there are no computers, and they do not want to alienate
their clients:

[See Supplementary Files for audio clip#7]

R1: This (computers) is something the clients have no
concept of. They are old, they are afraid of it.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#8]

R2: If I go to their homes, where some of them are poor,
just old fashioned and don't know anything about computers,
they're going to wonder what you're typing up about them.
They're also going to wonder, you know, like I don't
know...I guess I just feel like, here I am coming in their
house with a nice laptop computer...I don't know like here
I'm with laptop, who do I think I am? I don't know, I think
things like that get a lot of people uncomfortable and here
I am with a nice laptop computer in their house.
I: So, is that a concern?
R: Yeah, a little of that...I mean I like the whole
computer thing. Our information can't get lost like files
get lost because everything is on the desk. But the whole
computer thing, they're going to be like, what are you
typing about me?
R: Do you think this would affect your relationship with
the clients?
I: Not really the relationship. I think they're just going
to be like curious and wonder. Like a lot of people don't
like government workers as it is (lowering her voice). They
are going to be like, she comes here with a fancy computer,
what does she think she is?

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#9]

R3
I: What have you heard about the new information
system?
R: I have heard that we are going to use laptops for our
home assessments, and then come back to the office and
hotsync it, whatever that means (laughs).
I: How do you feel about that?
R: I am kind of skeptical about the ease of using it, how
the clients will react to us, like a 90 year-old sitting
there with us in front of them with the computer. I think
my attention is going to be on the computer and not the
client, so I don't like that.

A few workers contradicted these sentiments and said that
they liked the idea of computers because they perceived
potential benefits in their service provision:

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#10]

R1: So I think if you have a good rapport with the client I
do not think it matters what form you use as long as you
have the trust that the reason they gave this information
is to provide services for them. So that is going to be
advantageous to them because you are not going to spend so
much time, you know, doing things on paper, just more time
for them.

Interestingly, in our job observations of the caseworkers at
work in the field, the alternative viewpoint described in the
immediately preceding verbatim seemed to be most veridical to
the likely reactions to the laptops by clients. In other
words, we ascertained that clients did not appear to be
poised for the strong negative reactions to laptops expected
by the other respondents reported earlier. The reported
expectation of negative reactions to laptops was thus
arguably a shared argumentative strategy for creating
resistance rather than an accurate reflection of ground truth
in the field.

4.2.2. Theme 2. Introduction
of cell phones for work

When we asked about laptops, respondents often referred
almost immediately to past negative experiences with
organization-owned cell phones. The connection was critical
in the mind of caseworkers and thus bears explanation here.
To caseworkers, cell phone introduction was an example of how
they perceived that the administration treated them unfairly.

About six months before the interviews, caseworkers were
given cellular phones to use in the field. Agency management
told caseworkers that the phones were only for use in
emergencies, and also gave instructions to document all
calls. Personal use of the phones was strictly prohibited.
Described as "old-fashioned" because of their size and
inability to hold a charge, the phones were rarely used.
Caseworkers expressed frustration over the requirements to
charge the battery nightly and also complained about having
to carry the heavy phones, along with the many other heavy
items, including a briefcase of paper forms and a bathroom
scale. Although several caseworkers said the telephones were
helpful for calling a client when they could not hear the
doorbell, most caseworkers found them not only inconvenient,
but also an instrument of control by the administration. When
asked why they got the cellular phones, one respondent said,
"so that they could find us if they needed us." They compared
the new laptops to the cell phones, saying that although in
theory they were supposed to help them, instead they caused
inconvenience in a number of ways, such as physical burdens
and interruptions in the workers' schedules.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#11]

R1: We have cell phones but we aren't allowed to use them.
They are used for emergencies or if they want to call us.
It's only rung once since I got it, which was over six
months ago.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#12]

R2: I can retrieve the messages, but I don't like it as a
way of communication. People get you on the cell phone and
say, 'While you're on your way back, do this.' I have a
heavy schedule already, and I don't really like to be
bothered in the field. And I also don't have it charged and
I'll get in trouble.

In describing the cell phone directive, one caseworker,
echoing others, expressed her perception that it was an
instrument of administration control and intrusion.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#13]

R: You have to find way for saving the time. It is boom,
boom, boom, you gotta keep moving quickly. You have to
manage your time really well or you are not going to see
the things done. I can go and see someone, instead of
waiting for somebody. I do not have a beeper. We have cell
phones but I just used twice, we have to carry them with
us. They are big, they are heavy. I only use mine for only
safety reasons. When I go to a visit, I leave it in the
car. Do I really feel comfortable with it?? In the sense
of, I don't know, if there is an emergency. I am just not
familiar with it. I do not feel comfortable with it.

Subjects repeatedly compared their experience with having the
cellular phones and the administration's justification of the
cellular phones with what they expect will happen with the
laptops.

4.3 Caseworkers' membership
categories

Developing category assignments resulted in changes of our
assumptions about these data. As a warm-up phase of each
interview, employees were asked how they felt about their
jobs. The process of identity creation began at this point,
as they begin to reveal the membership categories to which
they identified and described themselves in relation to the
other groups in their social world. The membership groups, or
in Sacks's (1992) terms "standard
relational pairs", identified by the employees included the
caseworkers themselves, the administration, and their elderly
or homebound clients.

The "feature-rich nature of the pairings" is evident in
caseworkers' responses. The main pairings are outlined in
Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Standard relational pairs:
caseworkers and clients

Caseworkers

Clients

Helpers

Recipients of help

Listeners

Speakers

Vulnerable

Living in unsafe neighborhood

Respectable, neat

Pathetic, filthy

Fearful about learning computers

Fearful about having computers in their homes

In relation to the clients, caseworkers' primary professional
identities were expressed as helping people in need, showing
concern for clients, providing personal service, and finding
solutions to problems. For most respondents, their job
satisfaction was reported as based in this primary aspect of
their jobs as helpers. Their roles in the office and
administrative responsibilities were constructed as secondary
and, for the most part, frustrating. Working often in
difficult, rushed, and dangerous conditions, caseworkers
described themselves in relation to this negative situation
and presenting their moral and professional identities in the
course of these categorizations.

Table 2. Standard relational pairs:
caseworkers and administration

Caseworkers

Administration

Oppressed

Oppressors

Uninformed

Unwilling to inform

Babies

Babysitters

Monitored

Source of surveillance

Forced to adapt to new technologies

Enforcers of rules

In relation to the administration, there were many areas of
contention and dissatisfaction. One caseworker described the
work place as a "fishbowl". Others resented the "red dot"
magnetic white board system that required each of them to
post a message with their location at all times throughout
the day. Caseworkers expressed frustration about excessive
monitoring while they were in the field, including some
instances where office staff followed them to client visits
or called them while they were with clients just to confirm
their presence.

4.4 Organizational issues

Respondents reported knowing very little about the mandated
plans to integrate laptops into their fieldwork. Most said
that all they knew was that there were going to be laptops,
and that the transition was mandatory. The respondents did
not mention participation in the planning process, although
there were several public announcements about the change.
When prompted, caseworkers responded that they understood
that it was just something they had to accept.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#14]

R: Some of them will groan (about the upcoming system), but
most of them are just like me. That's just the way things
are, like women wearing high heels. It's like the thing to
do so they do it, even though it kills their feet.
I: Do you think the people who are planning the system are
sensitive to these issues?
R: I don't know.
I: How do you feel your participation has been in this
process.
R: There was none. We were just told.

One caseworker who said she felt neutral about the new
regulations suggests by her language that she is both fearful
and resentful.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#15]

I: Have you heard about the proposed changes?
R: No. Just that we are going to be logging the
information, I don't know the current terms for it, putting
in the information into the computers, as opposed to using
paper.
I: What are your concerns about that?
R: I haven't really stopped to think about it that much,
because I don't feel like we have a choice. Well, I don't
think anybody has a choice.
I: Even the administration?
R: Well, they probably do, but I mean, if they want us to
work with computers I don't think it's a good thing to say
no. I mean, it's a state thing, from what I
understand.
I: What would happen if you did protest?
R: I think you would be fired.
I: And that would be a problem.
R: That depends on how you look at it (loud laugh). I
wouldn't want to be fired, because I like my job. (to the
tape recorder) Did you hear that? (laughs) No. Like when
they tell you are going to move to another building, there
is not much you can do.

4.5 General resistance to
technology

Caseworkers' resistance to the technology in the workplace
appeared in some cases to filter into their personal lives as
well, as shown in the following excerpts that exude the
negativity we referred to earlier:

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#16]

R1
I: Can you think of anything else that would make your work
life better?
R: Yeah, have the Internet self-destruct.(laughs)
I: Do you have a problem with the Internet?
R: I don't know. It's just very impersonal or something. I
like the telephone better than email, for example. I just
have never liked computers. I don't even watch much TV. I
like videos. I don't know. I just don't like computers. I
would like the world without computers.

[See Supplementary Files for audio
clip#17]

R2: It is not something I am going to do in my free time.
If I have to learn it for my job I'll learn it, but I am
not going to spend my free time with computer. I'd rather
be doing other things. I do not connect with machines. I am
not a machine person. So that is why does the trouble with
the cell phone and so on. I do not feel comfortable working
with machines, a little difficult for me.

5 Discussion

The origins and basis of technology acceptance and resistance
in an organization becomes complex when examined in the light
of how technology has been used in the past, how it may be
seen as a tool of oppression, and how these experiences
affect employees' emotions and attitudes about the proposed
new technology in the workplace. Beyond the features and
characteristics of the technology and the usability issues
that are normally addressed in studies of technology
acceptance, a deeper look at the workers' membership
categories appeared to show that there were many issues of
power, organizational dysfunction, and experience with past
technological transitions that affected employees' visions of
themselves and their workplace.

Kling's research and writings frequently suggested that
technological changes such the ones described above often
come with the technical details carefully planned but with
little or no consideration of the ways the change will affect
people in their everyday work lives. In our research setting,
the caseworkers had received very little information about
the technology-driven changes but nonetheless quickly
concluded that the new technology would be burdensome.
Although not completely avoidable, these perceived burdens
could have been lightened through the development of a shared
worldview or "workplace vision" between the two groups. We
suggest that development of a shared workplace vision between
management and workers comprises a difficult but necessary
step for avoiding technology resistance. Although we have
only the caseworkers' perspectives here, and we must consider
the possibility that they collectively brought hidden agendas
into the interviews, we can state with some confidence that
lack of trust in management about the technology changes by
caseworkers arose from earlier perceptions of negative
treatment at the hands of administrators.

As local, on-the-ground experts in work methods and workflow,
employees often develop an early intuition about how an
organizational change, IT or otherwise, would fit into their
visions of themselves and their work, and they may act on
this intuition when making decisions about their adoption.
Silverman's note to avoid value judgments about the
apparently irrational behavior of workers is important here:
we construed their espoused attitudes and behavior as
skillful maneuvers to maintain orderly situations and
processes in the workplace. Seemingly irrational negativity
about the new laptops became more understandable when
examined in light of the cumulative histories of technology
use in the organization, and specifically at how earlier
experiences challenged workers' self image and professional
relationships.

We believe that the caseworkers' career anchors played a role
here too. We found ample evidence that many of the
caseworkers had "service" as a career anchor, and their
expectations about the future use of laptops for client
visits was related to how they envisioned their ability
to serve their clients, as well as their own safety, might be
compromised by use of the laptops. These caseworkers
performed jobs that gave them little pay or benefits but they
did gain recognition from clients that they are providing
essential services to a needy population. Their job
satisfaction appeared to arise largely from their image of
themselves as "doing good". Any challenge to that self
perception was understandably resented and the magnitude of
their resistance is related to the degree to which their
professional effectiveness is anticipated to be negatively
affected.

6 Limitations

By using interviews as a main source of data, we encountered
two limitations, some inherent in the method and others
peculiar to the situation. First, the context of the
interviews was such that respondents understood that the
researchers were interested in their opinions about the
upcoming technological change but they themselves knew little
about what those changes would entail. It is possible that
their responses were thus particularly negative and their
anxiety about the effects of the technology on their future
work lives was at a maximum. Secondly, "in action" studies
are often based on analysis of audio tapes from "real life"
organization interactions such as parent-teacher conferences,
patient-doctor interactions, or other kinds of organizational
data (diaries, notes). Our study used interview data as
organizational data, in part because of the difficulties
(technical, social, and ethical) involved in audio taping
visits with elderly and sick clients. In an ideal research
situation, we might have chosen to use daily interactions
between caseworkers and clients as our main data set, but
given our limitations, we think that the interviews, with
field notes from client visits as additional confirmation,
presented an adequate window for viewing the kind of
organizational features in which we were interested. Given
these limitations, we did not attempt to apply formal
conversation analysis techniques to the entire corpus, but
rather used the concepts from membership categorization
analysis to help us to identify key passages and to provide
structure for analysis of those verbatims.

Another limitation was rooted in the relationship of
interviewees and members of the investigating team. We
represented an outside organization that could have been
associated with the upcoming change. Respondents may have
been trying to influence the decision about the necessity for
the change, looking for sympathy from an outsider, and using
the interview as a forum for complaining or trying to blame
other people for their fears or inability to adjust to
changes. Although there is a chance that some of these
strategies affected the interviews, we found that there was
considerable consistency across the interviews whenever
conducted, and concluded that it was unlikely that such
possible distortions seriously altered the validity of our
approach.

Another limitation of the study was that there were some
changes in key personnel during the study. Interview requests
were granted by the previous administrators, but we did not
have access to high-level administrators who were in charge
of implementing the new policies at the time of the study.
Most of our access to the inner workings of the new
administration was through the perceptions of the IT managers
who had closer contact with them than other employees. Even
their contact was rather meager at the time of our study,
however. It is likely that organizational upheaval in general
may have played a role in the negative perceptions of our
respondents throughout the time of our study. Although this
would have been a major flaw in our ability to predict future
events at this organization, we believe that these
limitations did not have a major effect on our understanding
of the local history and the case managers' perceptions at
the time of the data collection.

7 Conclusion and future research

This paper has documented some of the bases on which current,
attitudinally-focused technology acceptance models might be
critiqued. In place of such models we have synthesized two
theoretical areas and one methodological area: namely Kling's
work on the local history's impact on the social aspects of
computing, Schein's career anchor theory, and the
ethnomethodological tools of conversation analysis and
membership categorization analysis.

As our data was not the "natural" in-action talk normally
used in ethnomethodological studies, we did not undertake a
formal linguistic analysis. Rather, we began by adapting
several useful concepts of the method to view our data. Using
members' talk as a guide, we identified the caseworkers' own
categories and found how they described themselves, the key
actors in the organization from their perspective, and the
features of each category. We anticipated that these features
were especially important for the next step of analysis,
which was to connect them with what could be considered the
failure of past technology implementations and dim prospects
for the planned laptop implementation project. Caseworkers
defined themselves as "helpers" and "listeners" in relation
to their clients who were "recipients of help". When
describing the agency's administration, caseworkers
considered themselves "oppressed", "uninformed", and,
"monitored" in contradistinction to the administrators. In
describing the past introduction of cellular phones, the
caseworkers shared many of the salient aspects of each
category as well as the details of the local history and
organizational structure, and in turn shed light on some
highly plausible reasons for such a high intensity of
negative emotion surrounding the upcoming new technology.

In future research on technology acceptance and resistance
problems, one might use the strengths of conversation
analysis to highlight issues such as members' production of
asymmetry, approach of delicate topics, and use of linguistic
markers for "political" purposes. In an ideal world, this
extension of the reported research would include return to
the research site to record actual client visits using the
new, required technology. We envision that new studies
relating to the adoption of new technology in the workplace
could readily reveal rich and useful data, and that this data
could answer many of the unanswered "why" questions about
technology acceptance.

From a practical perspective, our ethnomethodological
analysis of interview data in light of Kling's and Schein's
theoretical guidance appeared to highlight the importance of
workplace visions, and of workers' basic career orientations
in the emergence of those visions. If managers wish to avoid
technology implementation failures, we suggest that one
fruitful step in diminishing the potential for technology
resistance would lie in eliciting those workplace visions
from workers and orienting the technology planning,
communication, and deployment processes based on a
sensitivity towards preserving what workers consider
predominantly important in their own work lives.

8 Epilogue

At the time of writing, the laptop project has still not come
to fruition. The person responsible for information
technology at the agency explained in a recent email message:

"We have purchased the software, have obtained our own
server, but still no laptops. Our new director has identified
some funding, and assures me that the laptops will be
forthcoming this year. We are in contact with the state
regularly as we are not yet in compliance, due to the mandate
and lack of funding for equipment."

The cell phone policy has undergone some changes as well:

"The case managers are still using cell phones for
communication and emergency situations. The only change in
the previous policy is that they may now use their own
personal cell phones, in place of (agency issued) cell phones
if they choose. They must get approval to use their own, give
their supervisor their cell phone number, and cannot charge
the office for calls made on their personal phones. Some case
managers preferred to carry only one cell phone (their own),
and this change was the compromise between personnel and the
case managers."

Acknowledgements

This research received support from a CAREER award from the
National Science Foundation (SES9984111/0196415), but the
ideas and conclusions expressed herein are those of the
authors and not necessarily endorsed by the National Science
Foundation. Many thanks to Martha Nimon, Shannon Tracy,
Tatyana Poletski, and Patrick Serumola for their invaluable
assistance in conducting this research, and to Christina
Finneran and Deirdre Stam for their editorial suggestions,
and to Carolyn Baker for her suggestions and encouragement on
our original idea. We would also like to thank the staff
members and students from the School of Information Studies
who helped us with the audio-files presented in the paper.

Button, G. and
Harper, R.H.R. (1993) "Taking the Organisation into
Accounts". In Technology in Working Order: Studies of
Work, Interaction, and Technology, edited by Graham
Button (London and New York: Routledge)

Heritage, J.
and Sefi, S. (1992) "Dilemmas of advice : Aspects of
the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between
health visitors and first-time mothers." In Talk at Work:
Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by Paul
Drew and John Heritage (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)

Author details

Kathryn R. Stam, Ph.D.

, is the Associate Director of the Syracuse Information
Security Evaluation (SISE) project at Syracuse University's
School of Information Studies, and is currently a Visiting
Professor of Anthropology at the SUNY Institute of Technology
in Utica, New York. Dr Stam earned her Ph.D. in Social
Science from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of
Citizenship and Public Affairs. She has published a range of
qualitative research on the topics of culture, health, and
technology, and has received financial support for her
research from the National Science Foundation.

Jeffrey M. Stanton, Ph.D., is an assistant
professor at Syracuse University's School of Information
Studies. Dr Stanton's educational background and research
interests lie at the junction of information technology and
organizational behavior. He has published more than 30
journal articles and book chapters on organizational
psychology, organizational research methods, and the
measurement of job attitudes.

Indira R. Guzman is a doctoral student and
adjunct professor at the School of Information Studies,
Syracuse University. Following nearly a decade of work
experience in the IT field, her research interests include
the impact of information technology in organizations, and
the role, career orientations and occupational subculture of
IT professionals.

Appendix: Interview
protocol

Before we begin, I need to mention a couple of formalities
about this interview. I am working with Dr Jeffrey Stanton at
Syracuse University on a project that has been funded by the
National Science Foundation. This research has been approved
Syracuse University's institutional review board and given
project number 01123. In this research we are looking at some
effects of technology on the workplace and the changes that
occur with the introduction of new information systems and
practices. We would like to get your perspectives on these
issues during this 50-minute interview.

All of your responses will remain confidential. We will
aggregate information from many individuals to develop our
research conclusions. Neither you personally nor your
organization will be identified in any of our research. We
will protect your identity in any reports that are provided
as feedback to your organization.

With your agreement, we would like to tape record this
interview. For this reason we ask that you try to avoid
naming specific individuals associated with your
organization. Remember that your participation is voluntary
and you are free to not answer any question that does not fit
your circumstances or that you feel is inappropriate; you may
also withdraw from the interview at any time. As you know, I
have already obtained approval to ask for your voluntary
participation. If you wish to participate, please read and
sign the attached informed consent forms. Please keep one
signed copy of the form for your records.

General questions

1. What is your position? Can you tell me a bit about what
you do here?
2. How long have you been with the organization?
3. How do you feel about your job? What do you like about it?
What do you dislike?
4. What are your current responsibilities in your
organization?
5. In brief, what is your "workflow" now? (Optional: What
kinds of records do you keep? What is the process for keeping
these records - timing and so forth?)
6. What is troublesome about these tasks? How might these be
improved? (Optional: What are the problems you are having
right now? What other records do you need to access that you
cannot conveniently obtain now? How often would you need
those data?)
7. How do computers (e.g. laptops) fit into this process now?
Do you use a computer at work? At home?

Communication

8. How do you communicate with other people in your job? With
clients? Other caseworkers? Supervisors? Office staff? Other
departments?
9. With whom do you communicate most often and about what
topics?
10. Among the people you mentioned, which are the most
important communications and why?
11. What technology do you use, if any, to keep in touch with
each other (none/face-to-face, phone, voice-mail, beeper,
email, public address system, instant messaging or
chat)?
12. How much do you count on information from these other
people in order to be able to do your job?
13. How do other people in the organization communicate with
you?
14. What kinds of information do you get from these other and
how frequently?
15. Are there any barriers to communication between you and
specific individuals (no names, please)? Within the
organization as a whole?
16. Can you think of any ways these could be overcome?

Changes due to information technology

I understand that there is a new client database system being
put into place and to go along with this, the possibility of
using laptop computers out in the field.

17. What have you heard about the proposed changes?
18. What among these changes causes you the most
concern?
19. How would these changes affect your relationship with
clients? Other caseworkers? Supervisors? Office staff?
Administration? Anyone else in the organization? (Probe for
laptops in the field, if not mentioned).
20. How do you think your coworkers will react to the
proposed changes?
21. How do you think your clients will react? What makes you
think this?
22. What ways do you have, in general, to cope with change
that occurs in your department?
23. If you have worked in a similar setting, can you talk
about how you handled information differently there?
24. How confident are you that this new system will actually
be successful at improving the effectiveness of the work done
by your office?
25. How do you see the new system increasing or decreasing
some of your current job related stress?
26. How do you see the system affecting your job
satisfaction?
27. Based on your experiences in other employment settings,
where does this organization stand in terms of using
technology to help staff members do their work more
effectively?
28. What benefits can you see of having this new information
system? What benefits can you see of having laptops in the
field?
29. In what ways might it make your work life easier? More
difficult?
30. What features or capabilities would the "perfect" system
include?

Training on new information technology

Next, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about
training on the new system.

31. How do you feel about learning the new system?
32. How do you feel about learning how to use a laptop in the
field? (Or if you do not have computer experience, how do you
feel about learning to use a computer in general)
33. In an ideal world, how would you get your training on
computers, the new system, and for using laptops in the
field?
34. Would it be useful to have some training in how to
explain the laptops to clients?

Information boundaries

35. Think about the information that will be stored in the
laptops and the new database system that we've been
discussing. What, if any, of this information is sensitive?
For example, what kinds of sensitive information will the
system have about clients, you personally, or about your work
activities?
36. What might happen if this sensitive information were
released to the wrong people? Who would be affected?
37. In your opinion, how should access to this information be
controlled and protected? For example, who should have access
to it and what procedures should they have to follow to get
access?
38. Do you feel that the planning that is going into this
information system and its reported capabilities will be
sufficient to deal with your concerns about sensitive
information?

Barriers and IT language: user perspective

39. Who are the people here who are directly responsible for
information technology (IT) in this organization? (If they
are not familiar with IT, you can ask them about computers in
general)
40. How much contact do you have with these people or that
person?
41. What is it like working with them? In what ways do you
depend on that person's expertise?
42. How do they communicate with you about IT issues?

Supplemental online resources

Ethnomethodology and research group Web sites

Ethno/CA News

offers information on ethnomethodology and conversation
analysis and has been online since the Fall of 1996. "It is a
medium for the exchange of information concerning
publications, conferences and other items relevant to
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis among those who
work in the field or have a strong interest in it. ETHNO/CA
NEWS is produced by Paul ten Have, formerly Associate
Professor in the Department of Sociology, Faculty of
Political and Socio-Cultural Sciences, University of
Amsterdam." http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/emca/

Paul ten Have's site also contains these two comprehensive
bibliographies:

The International Institute for Ethnomethodology and
Conversation Analysis, founded in 1989, is a consortium of
persons and institutions in North America, Europe and the
United Kingdom which is dedicated to the advancement of
theory and method in ethnomethodological and conversation
analytic studies and to the development of research,
instructional and other programs as well as conferences,
symposia and lectures http://www.iiemca.org/

Books and articles

Malhotra, Y. and D. Galletta. "Extending the Technology
Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical
Bases and Empirical Validation." Proceedings of the 32nd
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1999
http://www.brint.org/technologyacceptance.pdf